soil liquefaction

© All Rights Reserved

7 views

soil liquefaction

© All Rights Reserved

- Baraadsar Trek
- Crossing Calculation API RP1102 (TEMPLATE)
- RingGirder
- Seismic Isolation Design Example
- Steel-Concrete Composite Building Under Seismic Forces,D. R. Panchal (Research).pdf
- 2012 colorado fire
- Biomimicry
- Chapter-1 SOM 2010_31
- A 013120106
- understanding ecosystems - ch
- New Seismic Design Criteria of Piping Systems in High-Pressure Gas Facilities
- Ad Me
- Result Discussion Immobilize
- Safe Rc Design
- Stb 2006
- New Microsoft Office Word Document
- UNIT.1 Ground Improvement completely updated
- Design Philosophy
- Columns Lectures
- Test 2 - Vibration Chapter 3 4

You are on page 1of 33

P PO OT TE EN NT TI IA AL L D DU UR RI IN NG G E EA AR RT TH HQ QU UA AK KE ES S

INTERIM PROJECT REPORT 2008-2009

SUBMITTED BY

CIGO G.A.

MAHENDRA P.A.

MANISHA T RAJAN

PRASIDHA T.G.

SIJO P JOSE

SREEHARI SOMAN T.

GUIDED BY

DR SYED JALALUDEEN SHAH

(senior lecturer in civil engineering)

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

2 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We woul d l ike t o t ake t his opportuni ty to t hank t he al might y for hel ping us i n

compl et i ng t he int eri m proj ect report .

Our sincere t hanks t o t he Head of t he Depart ment , DR. M. K. VEERANKUTTY

for his valuabl e advi ce and support which hel ped us in doi ng t he project wi t h

ut most dedi cat i on and presence of mi nd.

We woul d al so li ke t o record our deep sense of grati t ude t o our project gui de

DR. SYED JALALUDEEN SHAH (Senior l ecturer in Ci vi l Engi neering). For

hi s i mmense support and guidance ext ended t o us during each and every st age

of our proj ect .

It i s our pl easure and pri vi l ege to give due regards and appreci at i on t o t he

members of t he st age and our cl assmat es for di vi ng us maxi mum

encouragement during t he entire course of conducti ng t he proj ect .

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

3 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

ABSTRACT

This report presents application of the results of studies conducted to develop improved,

probabilistically based correlations for the use of Standard penetration test (SPT) data for

evaluation of resistance to "triggering" or initiation of cyclic liquefaction for Thrissur area.

The relationships presented herein have a number of significant advantages over previous

probabilistic and deterministic relationships currently available. In the current methods in use

until recently, Cyclic Shear Stress Ratio is evaluated either by means of (a) direct, case

specific site response analyses, or (b) new stress reduction co efficient (r

d

) correlations

developed as a part of these studies.

In the new method being used here, which is based on the Standard Penetration Test;

Previously available field case history data have been re evaluated, taking advantage of

recent developments/ insights regarding (a) factors affecting "correction" of SPT data

for energy, equipment, procedure, and rod length effects, and (b) factors affecting

evaluation of insitu equivalent uniform cyclic stress ratio (CSR), including source

mechanism effects, local site effects, etc.

In the new r

d

correlations developed for the SPT based method, improved and unbiased

"simplified" estimates of insitu CSR are estimated as a function of depth, magnitude,

shaking intensity, and site stiffness. Overburden effects K

greatly enhanced database of better quality, higher standards are set for acceptability of case

history data.

The resulting new correlations provide a significantly improved basis for evaluation of

liquefaction resistance, and also resolve a number of previously difficult issues including (a)

"corrections" for fines content, and (b) magnitude correlated duration weighting factors

(for magnitudes other than M

W

= 7.5). The new correlations eliminate prior bias, and have

greatly reduced uncertainty (or variance) as compared to previous, similar relationships.

Using the new correlations liquefaction potential evaluation has been carried at two different

locations in Thrissur at various depths for earth quake magnitudes of 7.5 and 2.5.

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

4 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

5 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

CHAPTER-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Liquefaction is a physical process that takes place during certain earthquakes leading to

ground failure. As a consequence of liquefaction, soft, young, water-saturated, well sorted,

fine grain sands and silts behave as viscous fluids rather than solids. Liquefaction takes place

when seismic shear waves pass through a saturated granular soil layer, distorting its granular

structure, and causing some of its pore spaces to collapse. The collapse of the granular

structure increases pore space water pressure, and decreases the soil's shear strength. If pore

space water pressure increases to the point where the soil's shear strength can no longer

support the weight of the overlying soil, buildings, roads, houses, etc., then the soil will flow

like a liquid and cause extensive surface damage.

1.2 WHY DOES LIQUEFACTION OCCUR?

To understand liquefaction, it is important to recognize the conditions that exist in a soil

deposit before an earthquake. A soil deposit consists of an assemblage of individual soil

particles. If we look closely at these particles, we can see that each particle is in contact with a

number of neighboring particles. The weight of the overlying soil particles produce contact

forces between the particles; these forces hold individual particles in place and give the soil its

strength.

Liquefaction occurs when the structure of loose, saturated sand breaks down due to some

rapidly applied loading. As the structure breaks down, the loosely-packed individual soil

particles attempt to move into a denser configuration. In an earthquake, however, there is not

enough time for the water in the pores of the soil to be squeezed out. Instead, the water is

"trapped" and prevents the soil particles from moving closer together. This is accompanied by

an increase in water pressure which reduces the contact forces between the individual soil

particles, thereby softening and weakening the soil deposit.

Contact forces are small because of the high water pressure. In an extreme case, the pore

water pressure may become so high that many of the soil particles lose contact with each

other. In such cases, the soil will have very little strength, and will behave more like a liquid

than a solid; hence, the name "liquefaction".

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

6 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

Fig.1Soilgrainsduringliquefaction

Soil grains in a soil deposit. The height of the

blue column to the right represents the level

ofporewaterpressureinthesoil.

Thelengthofthearrowsrepresentsthesize

ofthecontactforcesbetweenindividualsoil

grains. The contact forces are large when

theporewaterpressureislow.

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

7 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

Both flow liquefaction and cyclic mobility can produce damage at a particular site, and a

complete evaluation of liquefaction hazards requires that the potential for each be addressed.

When faced with such a problem, the geotechnical earthquake engineer can systematically

evaluate potential liquefaction hazards by addressing the following questions:

1. Is the soil susceptible to liquefaction...?

2. If the soil is susceptible will liquefaction be triggered...?

3. If liquefaction is triggered, will damage occur?

If the answer to the first question is no, the liquefaction hazard evaluation can be terminated

with the conclusion that liquefaction hazard do not exist. If the answer is yes, the next

question will be addressed. In some cases it may be more efficient to reverse the order of the

second and third questions, particularly when damage appears unlikely. If the answers to all

three are yes, a problem exists; if the anticipated level of damage is unacceptable, the site

must be abandoned or improved or on-site structures strengthened. These questions pertain to

the three most critical aspects of liquefaction hazard evaluation: susceptibility, initiation, and

effects. All three must be considered in a comprehensive evaluation of liquefaction hazards.

1.4 LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY

Not all soils are susceptible to liquefaction; consequently, the first step in a liquefaction

hazard evaluation is usually the evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility. If the soil at a

particular site is not susceptible, liquefaction hazard do not exist and the liquefaction hazard

evaluation can be ended. If the soil is susceptible, however, the matters of liquefaction

initiation and effects must be addressed. There are several criteria by which liquefaction

susceptibility can be judged, and some are different for flow liquefaction and cyclic mobility.

These include historical, geologic, compositional, and state criteria.

1.5 INITIATION OF LIQUEFACTION

The generation of excess pore pressure is the key to initiation of liquefaction. Without

changes in the pore pressure, hence changes in effective stress, neither flow liquefaction nor

cyclic mobility can occur. The different phenomenon can, however, required different levels

of pore pressure to occur.

The fact that soil deposit is susceptible to liquefaction does not mean that liquefaction will

necessarily occur in a given earthquake. Its occurrence requires a disturbance that is strong

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

8 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

enough to initiate, or trigger, it. Evaluation of the nature of that disturbance is one of the most

critical parts of that liquefaction hazard evaluation. Any discussion of the initiation of the

liquefaction must specify which liquefaction related phenomenon is being considered.

Although cyclic mobility is an earthquake related phenomenon, flow liquefaction can be

initiated in a variety of ways. Flow slides triggered by monotonic loading (static liquefaction)

have been observed in natural soil deposits, manmade fills and mine tailing piles. Flow

liquefaction has also been triggered by non seismic sources of vibration, such as pile driving,

train traffic, geophysical explorations and blasting. Perhaps somewhat ironically, the study of

static liquefaction over the past 10 to 15 years has contributed greatly to improved

understanding of seismically induced liquefaction by identifying the effective stress

conditions at which liquefaction phenomenon are initiated. Understanding the initiation

requires identification of the state of the soil well liquefaction is triggered.

1.6 TYPICAL EFFECTS OF LIQUEFACTION

a. Loss of bearing strength: The ground can liquefy and lose its ability to support.

b. Lateral spreading: The ground can slide down very gentle slopes or toward stream banks

riding on a buried liquefied layer.

c. Sand boils: Sand-laden water can be ejected from a buried liquefied layer and erupt at the

surface to form sand volcanoes; the surrounding ground often fractures and settles.

d. Flow failures: Earth moves down steep slope with large displacement and much internal

disruption of material.

e. Ground oscillation: The surface layer, riding on a buried liquefied layer, is thrown back

and forth by the shaking and can be severely deformed.

f. Floatation: Light structures that are buried in the ground (like pipelines, sewers and nearly

empty fuel tanks) can float to the surface when they are surrounded by liquefied soil.

g. Settlement: When liquefied ground re-consolidates following an earthquake, the ground

surface may settle or subside as shaking decreases and the underlying liquefied soil becomes

denser.

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

9 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

CHAPTER 2

PROCEDURE TO EVALUATE

LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

10 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

CHAPTER 2

PROCEDURE TO EVALUATE THE LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL OF

SOIL DUE TO EARTHQUAKE

2.1 Introduction

Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating the liquefaction potential of saturated cohesion less

soils during earthquakes are reexamined and revised relations for use in practice are

recommended .The stress reduction factor r

d

, earthquake magnitude scaling factor for cyclic

stress ratios (MSF), overburden correction factor for cyclic stress ratios (K

burden normalization factor for penetration resistances (C

N

) are discussed and recently

modified relations are presented. These modified relations are used in re-evaluations of the

SPT case history data bases. Based on these re-evaluations, revised SPT based liquefaction

correlations are recommended for use in practice. In addition, shear wave velocity based

procedures and approaches used to evaluate the cyclic loading behavior of plastic fine-grained

soils are discussed.

CSR

M=7.5

= u.6S j

o

VO

a

max

oi

vo

[

r

d

MSF

1

K

o

(CSR)

M=7.5

= Cyclic Stress Ratio at earthquake magnitude 7.5

vo

= Total vertical stress

'

vo

= Effective vertical stress at depth Z

a

max

= Maximum horizontal acceleration

r

d

= Stress reduction coefficient

K

o

= Over burden correction factor

Step 1: Evaluation of total vertical stress (

VO

)

Total vertical stress (

VO

)

= * h

= Density of soil

h = thickness of layer

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

11 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

VO

)

Effective vertical stress ('

VO

)

=

VO

- ( h

w

*

w

)

VO

= Total stress

w

= density of water

h

w

= depth of water in that layer

Step 3: Evaluation of stress reduction coefficient (r

d

)

ln (r

d

) = (z) + (z) M

(Z) = -1.u12 -1.126sin j

Z

11.73

+ S.1SS[

(Z) = u.1u6 +u.118sin j

Z

11.28

+S.142[

Z = Depth of soil layer

Step 4:Evaluation of magnitude scaling factor (MSF) for Earthquake of magnitude 7.5

NSF =

CSR

N

CSR

7.S

M=Earthquakemagnitude

Magnitude Scaling factor MSF=6.9 exp[

-M

4

- u.uS8 1.8

)

K

c

= 1 - C

o

Inj

oi

VO

P

a

[ 1.u

C

c

=

1

18.9-2.55(N

1

)

60

C

c

= Coefficient developed by Idriss and Boulanger

(N

1

)

60

= Modified standard penetration number

j

oi

VO

P

a

[ = Effective vertical pressure in terms of 1atmosphere

1P

a

= 1u1Kpa

Step 6: Comparing the calculated CSR value with the plot between CSR and modified

standard penetration test (SPT) N value given by Idriss and Boulanger (2004), the possibility

of liquefaction can be estimated. If the calculated CSR value is higher (or in other words falls

on the side the curve corresponding to liquefied soils) than the CSR values for the

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

12 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

liquefaction is likely to get triggered.

FINES CONTENT (FC)

In the reference Idriss and Boulanger (2004) various curves have been proposed for CSR-SPT

relation for different fine contents of soil. In order to make use of these curves in the

computer program to be developed in this project, these curves have been fitted in

mathematical equations using MS-Excel. The curves fitted are presented here. (Fig -1)

Equations for the above fitted curves

For Fc=5% to Fc=15%

y = 1E-08x

6

- 8E-07x

5

+ 3E-05x

4

- 0.000x

3

+ 0.003x

2

- 0.004x + 0.087

R = 1

For Fc=15% to Fc=35%

y = 2E-08x

6

- 2E-06x

5

+ 6E-05x

4

- 0.000x

3

+ 0.007x

2

- 0.016x + 0.079

R = 0.999

Figure 1 Graph showing curves fitted using MS-Excel

C

y

c

l

i

c

s

h

e

a

r

s

t

r

e

s

s

r

a

t

i

o

(

C

S

R

)

Modifiedstandardpenetration (N

1

)

60

FC5%

FC=35%

FC35%

5%to15%

%to35%

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

13 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

For Fc35%

y = 9E-07x

5

- 4E-05x

4

+ 0.000x

3

- 0.002x

2

+ 0.010x + 0.086

R = 0.999

For Fc=35%

y = 1E-08x

6

- 6E-07x

5

+ 2E-05x

4

- 0.000x

3

+ 0.001x

2

+ 0.004x + 0.088

R = 1

For Fc5%

y = -5E-09x

6

+ 5E-07x

5

- 2E-05x

4

+ 0.000x

3

- 0.002x

2

+ 0.015x + 0.047

R = 0.999

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

14 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

CHAPTER 3

ASSESSMENT OF

LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AT

THRISSUR

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

15 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

CHAPTER 3

EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL FOR SOILS IN

THRISSUR

Using the methods as given previously, liquefaction potential is evaluated

for the following two sites with the soil and other properties as mentioned

SITE: - 1, Sakthan Thampuran Nagar, Thrissur

DEPTH (m) SOIL TYPE THICKNESS N-VALUE DENSITY(KN/m

3

)

2.50 Sandy Clay 2.50 8 18.20

3.30 Clay 0.80 3 16.70

5.00 Sandy clay 1.70 5 18.20

1.1.0 SITE: - 1, Earthquake Magnitude = 7.5, Depth = 2.5m.

Soil type : Sandy Clay

Depth at which layer starts below ground level : G.L

Thickness of layer : 2.50m

Granular part content : 20%

SPT N Value : 8

Unit weight : 18.20 KN/m

3

Depth of water table : 1.20m Below G.L.

Earthquake Magnitude : 7.5

Maximum horizontal ground acceleration : 0.51 g

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

16 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

VO

)

VO

= * h = 18.20 * 2.5

= 45.50 KN/m

2

1.1.2 Evaluation of effective vertical stress ('

VO

)

'

VO

=

VO

- ( h

w

*

w

)

= 45.50 - (2.5-1.2) * 9.81 = 32.747 KN/m

2

1.1.3 Evaluation of stress reduction coefficient (r

d

)

ln (r

d

) = (z) + (z) M

(Z) = -1.u12 -1.126sin j

Z

11.73

+S.1SS[

(Z) = -1.u12 -1.126sin j

2.5

11.73

+S.1SS[

= -1.1169

(Z) = u.1u6 +u.118sin j

Z

11.28

+S.142[

(Z) = u.1u6 + u.118sinj

2.5

11.28

+ S.142[

= 0.1170

M = 7.5

ln (r

d

) = (z) + (z) M

= -1.1169 + 0.1170 * 7.5

= -0.23917 r

d

= 0.78728

1.1.4 Evaluation of magnitude scaling factor (MSF) for Earthquake of magnitude 7.5

NSF =

CSR

M

CSR

.S

=

CSR

.S

CSR

.S

=1.0

1.1.5 Overburden correction factor (K

)

K

c

= 1 - C

o

Inj

oi

VO

P

a

[ 1.u

C

c

=

1

18.9-2.55(N

1

)

60

=

1

18.9-2.558

= 0.08556

K

c

= 1 - u.u8SS6 In j

32.747

101

[

= 1.u96,

= 1.096 > 1.0

K

= 1.0

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

17 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

CSR

M=7.5

= u.6S j

o

VO

a

max

oi

vo

[

r

d

MSF

1

K

o

CSR

M=7.5

= u.6S j

45.50-0.51

32.747

[

0.78728

1

1

1

= 0.3626

1.1.7 Evaluation of CSR to initiate the liquefaction obtained by derived graph

ForFc=20%usingcurve15%Fc35%

Y (C.S.R) = 2E-08x

6

- 2E-06x

5

+ 6E-05x

4

- 0.000x

3

+ 0.007x

2

- 0.016x + 0.079

Sub N = 8; i.e. x=8 in above equation

Y (C.S.R) = 2E-08*8

6

- 2E-06x

5

+ 6E-05x

4

- 0.000x

3

+ 0.007x

2

- 0.016x + 0.079

= 0.1232

Since 0.1232 < 0.3626, Liquefaction will occur.

1.2.0 SITE: - 1, Earthquake Magnitude = 7.5, Depth = 3.30m.

Soil type : clay

Depth at which layer starts below ground level : 2.50m

Thickness of layer : 0.80m

Granular part content : 10%

SPT N value : 3

Unit weight : 16.70 KN/m

3

Depth of water table : 1.20m below GL

Earthquake magnitude : 7.5

Maximum horizontal ground acceleration : 0.51 g

1.2.1 Evaluation of total vertical stress (

VO

)

VO

= * h +

1

* h

1

= 18.20 * 2.5 + 16.70*(3.3-2.5)

= 58.86 KN/m

2

1.2.2 Evaluation of effective vertical stress ('

VO

)

'

VO

=

VO

- ( h

w

*

w

)

= 58.86 - (3.3-1.2) * 9.81

= 38.259 KN/m

2

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

18 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

d

)

ln (r

d

) = (z) + (z) M

(Z) = -1.u12 -1.126sin j

Z

11.73

+S.1SS[

(Z) = -1.u12 -1.126sin j

3.3

11.73

+S.1SS[= -1.1182

(Z) = u.1u6 +u.118sin j

Z

11.28

+ S.142[

(Z) = u.1u6 + u.118sinj

3.3

11.28

+ S.142[ = 0.1172

M = 7.5

ln (r

d

) = (z) + (z) M

= -1.1182 + 0.1172 * 7.5

= -0.239, r

d =

0.7874

1.2.4 Evaluation of magnitude scaling factor (MSF) for Earthquake of magnitude 7.5

NSF =

CSR

M

CSR

.S

=

CSR

.S

CSR

.S

=1.0

1.2.5 Overburden correction factor (K

)

K

c

= 1 - C

o

Inj

oi

VO

P

a

[ 1.u

C

c

=

1

18.9-2.55(N

1

)

60

=

1

18.9-2.553

= 0.06905

K

c

= 1 - u.u69uSInj

S8.2S9

101

[ = 1.u67

= 1.067 > 1.0, K

= 1.0

1.2.6 Cyclic shear stress ratio (CSR)

CSR

M=7.5

= u.6S j

o

VO

a

max

oi

vo

[

r

d

MSF

1

K

o

CSR

M=7.5

= u.6S j

58.86-0.51

38.259

[

0.7874

1

1

1

= 0.4016

1.2.7 Evaluation of CSR to initiate the liquefaction obtained by derived graph:

For Fc = 10% using curve 5% Fc 15%

Y (C.S.R) = 1E-08x

6

- 8E-07x

5

+ 3E-05x

4

- 0.000x

3

+ 0.003x

2

- 0.004x + 0.087

N = 3; i.e. x=3 in the above equation

Y (C.S.R) = 1E-08*3

6

- 8E-07*3

5

+ 3E-05*3

4

- 0.000*3

3

+ 0.003*3

2

- 0.004*3 + 0.087

= 0.075

Since 0.075<0.4016, Liquefaction will occur.

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

19 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

Soil type : sandy clay

Depth at which layer starts below ground level : 3.30m

Thickness of layer : 1.70m

Granular part content : 20%

SPT N value : 5

Unit weight : 18.20 KN/m

3

Depth of water table : 1.20m below GL

Earthquake magnitude : 7.5

Maximum horizontal ground acceleration : 0.51 g

1.3.1 Evaluation of total vertical stress (

VO

)

VO

= * h +

1

* h

1

+

2

* h

2

= 58.86 + 18.20 * (5 - 3.3) = 89.80 KN/m

2

1.3.2 Evaluation of effective vertical stress ('

VO

)

'

VO

=

VO

- ( h

w

*

w

)

= 89.80 - (5.0-1.2) * 9.81

= 52.522 KN/m

2

1.3.3 Evaluation of stress reduction coefficient (r

d

)

ln (r

d

) = (z) + (z) M

(Z) = -1.u12 -1.126sin j

Z

11.73

+S.1SS[

(Z) = -1.u12 -1.126sin j

5

11.73

+S.1SS[

= -1.1211

(Z) = u.1u6 + u.118sinj

Z

11.28

+ S.142[

(Z) = u.1u6 + u.118sinj

5

11.28

+ S.142[

= 0.1175

M = 7.5

ln (r

d

) = (z) + (z) M

= -1.1211+ 0.1175* 7.5

= -0.2399, r

d =

0.7867

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

20 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

1.3.4 Evaluation of magnitude scaling factor (MSF) for Earthquake of magnitude 7.5

NSF =

CSR

M

CSR

.S

=

CSR

.S

CSR

.S

=1.0

1.3.5 Overburden correction factor (K

)

K

c

= 1 - C

o

Inj

oi

VO

P

a

[ 1.u

C

c

=

1

18.9-2.55(N

1

)

60

=

1

18.9-2.555

= 0.07577

K

c

= 1 - u.u7S77 Inj

S2.S22

101

[

= 1.u49

= 1.049 > 1.0, K

= 1.0

1.3.6 Cyclic stress ratio (CSR)

CSR

M=7.5

= u.6S j

o

VO

a

max

oi

vo

[

r

d

MSF

1

K

o

CSR

M=7.5

= u.6S j

89.80-0.51

52.522

[

0.7867

1

1

1

= 0.4459

1.3.7 Evaluation of CSR to initiate the liquefaction obtained by derived graph

For Fc = 20% using curve 15% Fc 35%

Y (C.S.R) = 2E-08x

6

- 2E-06x

5

+ 6E-05x

4

- 0.000x

3

+ 0.007x

2

- 0.016x + 0.079

N = 5; ie. x=5 in equation (1)

Y (C.S.R) = 2E-08*5

6

- 2E-07*5

5

+ 6E-05*5

4

- 0.000*5

3

+ 0.007*5

2

+ 0.016*5 + 0.079

= 0.08598. Since 0.08598 < 0.4459, Liquefaction will occur.

SITE 2: MASTER AVENUE ROAD THRISSUR

DEPTH (m) SOIL TYPE THICKNESS N-VALUE DENSITY(KN/m

3

)

1.90 Gravel Fill 1.90 11 20.00

3.00 Clayey Sand 1.10 4 18.20

4.00 Sandy clay 1.00 32 18.20

4.50 Stiff clay sand

with gravel

0.50 13 16.70

5.00 Sandy Clay 0.50 13 18.20

5.50 Sandy Clay 0.50 8 18.20

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

21 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

Soil type : gravel fill

Depth at which layer starts below ground level : GL

Thickness of layer : 1.90

Granular part content : 60%

SPT N value : 11

Unit weight : 20.00 KN/m

3

Depth of water table : 0.80m below g l

Earthquake magnitude : 2.5

Maximum horizontal ground acceleration : 0.09 g

2.1.1 Evaluation of total vertical stress (

VO

)

VO

= * h

= 20.00 * 1.90

= 38 KN/m

2

2.1.2 Evaluation of effective vertical stress ('

VO

)

'

VO

=

VO

- ( h

w

*

w

)

= 38.00 - (1.90-0.8) * 9.81

= 27.21 KN/m

2

2.1.3 Evaluation of stress reduction coefficient (r

d

)

ln (r

d

) = (z) + (z) M

(Z) = -1.u12 -1.126sin j

Z

11.73

+S.1SS[

(Z) = -1.u12 -1.126sin j

1.9

11.73

+S.1SS[= -1.1159

(Z) = u.1u6 +u.118sin j

Z

11.28

+ S.142[

(Z) = u.1u6 + u.118sinj

1.9

11.28

+ S.142[ = 0.1169

M = 2.5

ln (r

d

) = (z) + (z) M

= -1.1159 + 0.1169 * 2.5

= -0.23915, r

d =

0.4388

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

22 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

2.1.4 Evaluation of magnitude scaling factor (MSF) for Earthquake of magnitude 2.5

NSF = 6.9 exp [

-N

4

- u.uS8 1.8

NSF = 6.9 exp [

-2.S

4

- u.uS8 1.8 =1.5782

2.1.5 Overburden correction factor (K

)

K

c

= 1 - C

o

Inj

oi

VO

P

a

[ 1.u

C

c

=

1

18.9-2.55(N

1

)

60

=

1

18.9-2.5511

= 0.09576

K

c

= 1 - u.u9S76 Inj

27.21

101

[

= 1.12S8

= 1.1238 > 1.0, K

= 1.0

2.1.6 Cyclic shear stress ratio (CSR)

CSR

M=7.5

= u.6S j

o

VO

a

max

oi

vo

[

r

d

MSF

1

K

o

CSR

M=7.5

= u.6S j

38.00-0.09

27.21

[

0.4388

1.5782

1

1

= 0.01969

2.1.7 Evaluation of CSR to initiate the liquefaction obtained by derived graph

For Fc = 60% using curve Fc > 35%

y = 9E-07x

5

- 4E-05x

4

+ 0.000x

3

- 0.002x

2

+ 0.010x + 0.086

N = 11, ie. x = 11

y = 9E-07*11

5

- 4E-05*11

4

+ 0.000*11

3

- 0.002*11

2

+ 0.010*11 + 0.086

= 0.235

Since 0.235 > 0.01969, Liquefaction will not occur in this layer.

SITE: - 2, Earthquake Magnitude = 2.5, Depth = 3.00m.

Soil type : clayey sand

Depth at which layer starts below ground level : 1.90 m

Thickness of layer : 1.10 m

Granular part content : 60%

SPT N value : 4

Unit weight : 18.20 KN/m

3

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

23 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

Earthquake magnitude : 2.5

Maximum horizontal ground acceleration : 0.09 g

2.2.1 Evaluation of total vertical stress (

VO

)

VO

= * h +

1

* h

1

= 1.10 * 18.20 + 38

= 58.02 KN/m

2

2.2.2 Evaluation of effective vertical stress ('

VO

)

'

VO

=

VO

- ( h

w

*

w

)

= 38.00 - (3.00-0.8) * 9.81

= 36.438 KN/m

2

2.2.3 Evaluation of stress reduction coefficient (r

d

)

ln (r

d

) = (z) + (z) M

(Z) = -1.u12 -1.126sin j

Z

11.73

+S.1SS[

(Z) = -1.u12 -1.126sin j

3.0

11.73

+S.1SS[

=-1.1177

(Z) = u.1u6 + u.118sinj

Z

11.28

+ S.142[

(Z) = u.1u6 + u.118sinj

3.0

11.28

+ S.142[

= 0.1171

M = 2.5

ln (r

d

) = (z) + (z) M

= -1.1177 + 0.1171 * 2.5

= -0.82495

r

d

= 0.4383

2.2.4 Evaluation of magnitude scaling factor (MSF) for Earthquake of magnitude 2.5

NSF = 6.9 exp [

-N

4

- u.uS8 1.8

NSF = 6.9 exp [

-2.S

4

- u.uS8 1.8

=1.5782

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

24 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

)

K

c

= 1 - C

o

Inj

oi

VO

P

a

[ 1.u

C

c

=

1

18.9-2.55(N

1

)

60

=

1

18.9-2.554

= 0.07246

K

c

= 1 - u.u7246 Inj

27.21

101

[

= 1.u7S9

= 1.0739 > 1.0, K

= 1.0

2.2.6 Cyclic stress ratio (CSR)

CSR

M=7.5

= u.6S j

o

VO

a

max

oi

vo

[

r

d

MSF

1

K

o

CSR

M=7.5

= u.6S j

58.02 -0.09

36.438

[

0.4383

1.5782

1

1

= 0.02268

2.2.7 Evaluation of CSR to initiate the liquefaction obtained by derived graph

For Fc = 60% using curve Fc > 35%

y = 9E-07x

5

- 4E-05x

4

+ 0.000x

3

- 0.002x

2

+ 0.010x + 0.086

y = 9E-07*4

5

- 4E-05*4

4

+ 0.000*4

3

- 0.002*4

2

+ 0.010*4 + 0.086

= 1.22

Since 1.22 > 0.02268, Liquefaction will not occur in this layer.

2.3.0 SITE: - 2, Earthquake Magnitude = 2.5, Depth = 4.00m.

Soil type : sandy clay

Depth at which layer starts below ground level : 3.00m

Thickness of layer : 1.00m

Granular part content : 20%

SPT N value : 32

Unit weight : 18.20 KN/m

3

Depth of water table : 0.80m from GL

Earthquake magnitude : 2.5

Maximum horizontal ground acceleration : 0.09 g

2.3.1 Evaluation of total vertical stress (

VO

)

VO

= * h +

1

* h

1

+

2

* h

2

= 1.9 * 20 +1.1*18.2 + 1*18.2 = 76.22 KN/m

2

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

25 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

VO

)

'

VO

=

VO

- ( h

w

*

w

)

= 76.22 - (4.00-0.8) * 9.81

= 44.828 KN/m

2

2.3.3 Evaluation of stress reduction coefficient (r

d

)

ln (r

d

) = (z) + (z) M

(Z) = -1.u12 -1.126sin j

Z

11.73

+S.1SS[

(Z) = -1.u12 -1.126sin j

4.0

11.73

+S.1SS[

=-1.1194

(Z) = u.1u6 + u.118sinj

Z

11.28

+ S.142[

(Z) = u.1u6 + u.118sinj

4.0

11.28

+ S.142[

= 0.1173

M = 2.5

ln (r

d

) = (z) + (z) M

= -1.1194 + 0.1173 * 2.5

= -0.82615

r

d

= 0.4377

2.3.4 Evaluation of magnitude scaling factor (MSF) for Earthquake of magnitude 2.5

NSF = 6.9 exp [

-N

4

- u.uS8 1.8

NSF = 6.9 exp [

-2.S

4

- u.uS8 1.8 =1.5782

2.3.5 Overburden correction factor (K

)

K

c

= 1 - C

o

Inj

oi

VO

P

a

[ 1.u

C

c

=

1

18.9-2.55(N

1

)

60

=

1

18.9-2.5532

= 0.22346

K

c

= 1 - u.22S46Inj

44.828

101

[ = 1.181S

= 1.181S > 1.0,

K

= 1.0

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

26 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

CSR

M=7.5

= u.6S j

o

VO

a

max

oi

vo

[

r

d

MSF

1

K

o

CSR

M=7.5

= u.6S j

76.22 -0.09

44.828

[

0.4377

1.5782

1

1

= 0.02420

2.3.7 Evaluation of CSR to initiate the liquefaction obtained by derived graph

For Fc = 20% using curve Fc 15% - 35%

y = 2E-08x

6

- 2E-06x

5

+ 6E-05x

4

- 0.000x

3

+ 0.007x

2

- 0.016x + 0.079

N = 32, i.e. x = 32

y = 2E-08*32

6

- 2E-06*32

5

+ 6E-05*32

4

- 0.000*32

3

+ 0.007*32

2

- 0.016*32 + 0.079

= 0.6

Since 0.6 > 0.02420, Liquefaction will not occur in this layer.

2.4.0 SITE: - 2, Earthquake Magnitude = 2.5, Depth = 4.50m.

Soil type : stiff clay sand with gravel

Depth at which layer starts below GL : 4.00m

Thickness of layer : 0.50m

Granular part content : 10%

SPT N value : 13

Unit weight : 16.70 KN/m

3

Depth of water table : 0.80m from GL

Earthquake magnitude : 2.5

Maximum horizontal ground acceleration : 0.09 g

2.4.1 Evaluation of total vertical stress (

VO

)

VO

= * h +

1

* h

1

+

2

* h

2

+

3

* h

3

= 0.50 * 16.70 + 76.22

= 84.57 KN/m

2

2.4.2 Evaluation of effective vertical stress ('

VO

)

'

VO

=

VO

- ( h

w

*

w

)

= 84.57 - (4.50-0.8) * 9.81

= 48.273 KN/m

2

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

27 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

d

)

ln (r

d

) = (z) + (z) M

(Z) = -1.u12 -1.126sin j

Z

11.73

+S.1SS[

(Z) = -1.u12 -1.126sin j

4.5

11.73

+S.1SS[=-1.1203

(Z) = u.1u6 + u.118sinj

Z

11.28

+ S.142[

(Z) = u.1u6 + u.118sinj

4.5

11.28

+ S.142[ = 0.1174

M = 2.5

ln (r

d

) = (z) + (z) M

= -1.1203 + 0.1174 * 2.5= -0.8268, r

d

= 0.4374

2.4.4 Evaluation of magnitude scaling factor (MSF) for Earthquake of magnitude 2.5

NSF = 6.9 exp [

-N

4

- u.uS8 1.8

NSF = 6.9 exp [

-2.S

4

- u.uS8 1.8 =1.5782

2.4.5 Overburden correction factor (K)

K

c

= 1 - C

o

Inj

oi

VO

P

a

[ 1.u

C

c

=

1

18.9-2.55(N

1

)

60

=

1

18.9-2.5513

= 0.10303

K

c

= 1 - u.1uSuSj

44.828

101

[ = 1.u761

= 1.0761 > 1.0, K

= 1.0

2.4.6 Cyclic stress ratio (CSR)

CSR

M=7.5

= u.6S j

o

VO

a

max

oi

vo

[

r

d

MSF

1

K

o

CSR

M=7.5

= u.6S j

84.57 -0.09

48.273

[

0.4374

1.5782

1

1

= 0.02420

2.4.7 Evaluation of CSR to initiate the liquefaction obtained by derived graph

For FC = 10% Using curve 5% FC 15%

Y (C.S.R) = 1E-08x

6

- 8E-07x

5

+ 3E-05x

4

- 0.000x

3

+ 0.003x

2

- 0.004x + 0.087

N =13; ie. x=13 in the above equation

Y (C.S.R) = 1E-08*13

6

- 8E-07*13

5

+ 3E-05*13

4

- 0.000*13

3

+ 0.003*13

2

- 0.004*13 + 0.087

= 0.075

Since 0.165>0.02490, Liquefaction will not occur in this layer.

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

28 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

Soil type : sandy clay

Depth at which layer starts below g l : 4.50m

Thickness of layer : 0.50m

Granular part content : 20%

SPT N value : 13

Unit weight : 18.20 KN/m

3

Depth of water table : 0.80m below GL

Earthquake magnitude : 2.5

Maximum horizontal ground acceleration : 0.09 g

2.5.1 Evaluation of total vertical stress (

VO

)

VO

= * h +

1

* h

1

+

2

* h

2

+

3

* h

3

= 0.50 * 18.20 + 84.57 = 93.67 KN/m

2

2.5.2 Evaluation of effective vertical stress ('

VO

)

'

VO

=

VO

- ( h

w

*

w

)

= 93.67 - (5.00-0.8) * 9.81

= 52.468 KN/m

2

2.5.3 Evaluation of stress reduction coefficient (r

d

)

ln (r

d

) = (z) + (z) M

(Z) = -1.u12 -1.126sin j

Z

11.73

+S.1SS[

(Z) = -1.u12 -1.126sin j

5

11.73

+S.1SS[=-1.1211

(Z) = u.1u6 + u.118sinj

Z

11.28

+ S.142[

(Z) = u.1u6 + u.118sinj

5

11.28

+ S.142[

= 0.1175

M = 2.5

ln (r

d

) = (z) + (z) M

= -1.1211 + 0.1175 * 2.5

= -0.82735,

r

d

= 0.4372

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

29 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

2.5.4 Evaluation of magnitude scaling factor (MSF) for Earthquake of magnitude 2.5

NSF = 6.9 exp [

-N

4

- u.uS8 1.8

NSF = 6.9 exp [

-2.S

4

- u.uS8 1.8

=1.5782

2.5.5 Overburden correction factor (K

)

K

c

= 1 - C

o

Inj

oi

VO

P

a

[ 1.u

C

c

=

1

18.9-2.55(N

1

)

60

=

1

18.9-2.5513

= 0.10303

K

c

= 1 - u.1uSuSj

S2.468

101

[

= 1.u67S

= 1.0675 > 1.0, K

= 1.0

2.5.6 Cyclic stress ratio (CSR)

CSR

M=7.5

= u.6S j

o

VO

a

max

oi

vo

[

r

d

MSF

1

K

o

CSR

M=7.5

= u.6S j

93.67-0.09

52.468

[

0.4372

1.5782

1

1

= 0.02537

2.5.7 Evaluation of CSR to initiate the liquefaction obtained by derived graph

For Fc = 20% using curve Fc 15% - 35%

y = 2E-08x

6

- 2E-06x

5

+ 6E-05x

4

- 0.000x

3

+ 0.007x

2

- 0.016x + 0.079

N = 13, i.e. x = 13

y = 2E-08*13

6

- 2E-06*13

5

+ 6E-05*13

4

- 0.000*13

3

+ 0.007*13

2

- 0.016*13 + 0.079

= 0.1632

Since 0.1632> 0.02537, Liquefaction will not occur in this layer.

2.6.0 SITE: - 2, Earthquake Magnitude = 2.5, Depth = 5.50m.

Soil type : sandy clay

Depth at which layer starts below ground level : 5.50m

Granular part content : 20%

SPT N value : 8

Unit weight : 18.20 KN/m

3

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

30 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

Earthquake magnitude : 2.5

Maximum horizontal ground acceleration : 0.09 g

2.6.1 Evaluation of total vertical stress (

VO

)

VO

= * h +

1

* h

1

+

2

* h

2

+

3

* h

3

= 0.50 * 18.20 + 93.67

= 102.77 KN/m

2

2.6.2 Evaluation of effective vertical stress ('

VO

)

'

VO

=

VO

- ( h

w

*

w

)

= 102.77 - (5.50-0.8) * 9.81

= 56.663 KN/m

2

2.6.3 Evaluation of stress reduction coefficient (r

d

)

ln (r

d

) = (z) + (z) M

(Z) = -1.u12 -1.126sin j

Z

11.73

+S.1SS[

(Z) = -1.u12 -1.126sin j

5.5

11.73

+S.1SS[

=-1.1219

(Z) = u.1u6 + u.118sinj

Z

11.28

+ S.142[

(Z) = u.1u6 + u.118sinj

5.5

11.28

+ S.142[

= 0.1176

M = 2.5

ln (r

d

) = (z) + (z) M

= -1.1219 + 0.1176 * 2.5

= -0.8279,

r

d

= 0.43697

2.6.4 Evaluation of magnitude scaling factor (MSF) for Earthquake of magnitude 2.5

NSF = 6.9 exp [

-N

4

- u.uS8 1.8

NSF = 6.9 exp [

-2.S

4

- u.uS8 1.8

=1.5782

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

31 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

)

K

c

= 1 - C

o

Inj

oi

VO

P

a

[ 1.u

C

c

=

1

18.9-2.55(N

1

)

60

=

1

18.9-2.558

= 0.08556

K

c

= 1 - u.u8SS6j

S6.66S

101

[

= 1.u49S

= 1.0495 > 1.0, K

= 1.0

2.6.6 Cyclic stress ratio (CSR)

CSR

M=7.5

= u.6S j

o

VO

a

max

oi

vo

[

r

d

MSF

1

K

o

CSR

M=7.5

= u.6S j

102.77 -0.09

56.663

[

0.43697

1.5782

1

1

=0.02576

2.6.7 Evaluation of CSR to initiate the liquefaction obtained by derived graph

For Fc = 20% using curve Fc 15% - 35%

y = 2E-08x

6

- 2E-06x

5

+ 6E-05x

4

- 0.000x

3

+ 0.007x

2

- 0.016x + 0.079

N = 8, i.e. x = 8

y = 2E-08*8

6

- 2E-06*8

5

+ 6E-05*8

4

- 0.000*8

3

+ 0.007*8

2

- 0.016*8+ 0.079

= 0.1232

Since 0.1232> 0.02576, Liquefaction will not occur in this layer.

Department of Civil Engineering Project20082009

32 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

CONCLUSION

Evaluation of liquefaction potential is carried out for 2 sites in Thrissur, using SPT and other

soil investigation data. The calculation was carried out for earthquakes of magnitudes 7.5 and

2.5.

From the results it is seen that liquefaction will occur at an earthquake of magnitude 7.5 or

higher, but will not occur at earthquakes of magnitude 2.5 or lesser

WORK TO BE DONE IN 8

TH

SEMESTER

To write a program, which making use of the soil and earthquake data at any location

will be able to estimate the exact values of earthquake intensity which will trigger

Liquefaction, and to carry out studies for various locations.

33 IES College of Engineering, Chittilappilly

REFERENCES

1. Idriss I.M. and Boulanger R.W. (2004) SEMIEMPIRICAL PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING

LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL DURING EARTHQUAKES, Proceedings of the 11

th

International

Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering and the 3

rd

International

ConferenceonEarthquakeGeotechnicalEngineering,Page3256

2. Cetin K.O., Seed R.B. and Kayen R.E. (2000) SPT Based Probabilistic and Deterministic

assessment of seismic soil liquefaction Initiation Hazard, Pacific Earthquake Engineering

ResearchReportNo.PEER2000/05.

1996NCEERand1998NCEER/NSFworkshoponevaluationofliquefactionresistanceofsoils.,

J.GeotechandGeoenvir.Engr.,NSCE,Vol.111,No.10,PP.817833.

4. Liquefaction(2007a)www.ce.washington.edu/liquefaction/html/what/what.html.

5. Liquefaction(2007b)

http://iisee.kenken.go.jp/net/yokoi/methodology/liquefaction.htm/index.htm

6. Liquefaction(2007c)http://G:/earthquake/liquefaction.ht

- Baraadsar TrekUploaded byvipul.gnu2602
- Crossing Calculation API RP1102 (TEMPLATE)Uploaded byHendra Yudistira
- RingGirderUploaded byAh Leng Lau
- Seismic Isolation Design ExampleUploaded byFelipe Cantillano
- Steel-Concrete Composite Building Under Seismic Forces,D. R. Panchal (Research).pdfUploaded bysmartman35
- BiomimicryUploaded bymegha madhu
- Chapter-1 SOM 2010_31Uploaded byAmit Mondal
- New Seismic Design Criteria of Piping Systems in High-Pressure Gas FacilitiesUploaded byelsherifahmed
- 2012 colorado fireUploaded byapi-242186879
- A 013120106Uploaded byIOSRjournal
- Ad MeUploaded byRudhy Andry Tanjung
- Safe Rc DesignUploaded byanon_127095796
- understanding ecosystems - chUploaded byapi-306702320
- Result Discussion ImmobilizeUploaded byAzura Bahrudin
- Stb 2006Uploaded bynuwan01
- New Microsoft Office Word DocumentUploaded byTejender Thakur
- UNIT.1 Ground Improvement completely updatedUploaded byharish babu aluru
- Design PhilosophyUploaded byAnonymous kBl0u3n
- Columns LecturesUploaded byMus'ab Usman
- Test 2 - Vibration Chapter 3 4Uploaded byFirzan
- LRDF rockUploaded byRaghav
- IIIM04 01 Maq1Uploaded byJossymar Carlos García
- Finkelstein. Megiddo_Earthquakes_Megiddo_IV_Chapter_3.pdfUploaded bybarujsefer
- 20. Concept 2 Check Your UnderstandingUploaded byAnonymous Uwj7UD7
- Ce6012_uw 1 - By Civildatas.blogspot.inUploaded bySaibharathReddy Chavva
- U beam.pdfUploaded byKS&TAN sdn bhd
- 241858894-Earthquake-Geotechnical-Engineering.pdfUploaded byLj Jean
- 12_ ColumnUploaded byMehmet Cigla
- X over-Static 3-1Uploaded byMuhammad Yudhistira Ramadan
- Elastic Inversion Basic TrainingUploaded bygeo84

- Paragraphs and Topic SentencesUploaded byMike Rose
- EVALUACIÓN DE RESERVORIOS CARBONATICOS DE LA FORMACION QUINTUCO, CUENCA NEUQUINA.Uploaded byNelson Lizarazo
- Thermal and Concentration BLUploaded byjojovaliaveetil
- Allowable Design Determining Allowable Design Values for WoodValues for WoodUploaded bybaktech
- Numerical Study of Seismic Earth Pressures Acting Against a Vertical Retaining Wall in Frictional SoilUploaded byBouraida El Yamouni
- 110Mid-2Uploaded bygeocodes
- AP Quantum Numbers worksheet.docxUploaded bySoumi Vesali
- 1Uploaded byRaghav Mishra
- Blood Gas ElectrodesUploaded bywellawalalasith
- qsar model validationUploaded byBeatrizCampos
- Zelio Control Relays_REG48PUN1JHUUploaded byJorge Aguero Cueva
- Fatigue Behavior of SMA and HMA MixturesUploaded byImraan
- VW10130_MFU_englisch_01.pdfUploaded byviniciusafonso
- Astrologyclub.org-Depth Analysis of Astrological AspectsUploaded byValentin Badea
- Experiment 1 - Errors, Uncertainties, and MeasurementUploaded byLina Lou Berdijo
- JEMAA20110200004_89074011-1Uploaded bymehran1364
- Suarez Rivera PresUploaded bySpanju Bobo
- 2-D seismic interpretation of the Outer Ex mouth of Barrow Sub-basin of Perth, Western AustraliaUploaded byInternational Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
- Flow, Thermal Criticality and Transition of a Reactive ThirdUploaded byNadji Chi
- carnivalessayUploaded byapi-350299892
- Chapter 3 - MatlabUploaded byGp Gonzales
- Symbols Used in Log InterpretationUploaded byAngel Saldaña
- Surface Treatment of CoFe2O4 Nanoparticles to Improve Their Dispersibility in Aqueous Phase WithUploaded byAlin Druc
- Cavitation Study in High Pressure PumpUploaded byNilesh Gohel
- Psychrometric ChartUploaded byalone160162l
- Internal Combustion Engines3.pdfUploaded byMustafa Yılmaz
- Casio Sgw300hd 1avUploaded byank316
- Limiting Sympathetic Interaction BetweenUploaded bybedabrat13
- Lane Detection and Kalman-based Linear-Parabolic Lane TrackingUploaded bybaerbatz
- A10Uploaded byjameswhite4321